Sarasota magistrate resolves dozens of code cases Sept. 18; fines, costs and continuances ordered

The City of Sarasota’s Code Compliance Special Magistrate heard more than two dozen cases on Sept. 18, 2025, addressing violations that ranged from unpermitted interior work and signs to overgrown lots, accumulation of trash and failure to renew business taxes. The magistrate found some properties in compliance, imposed or affirmed administrative fines and costs in others, authorized one city cleanup and continued multiple matters for inspection or permit completion.

The hearing matters were largely routine code-enforcement files generated by city inspections. Magistrate Richard Ellis said he was generally inclined to limit major financial penalties when respondents corrected violations quickly, and he repeatedly cited the city’s repeat-violator provision as a warning for future noncompliance. “I imposed a one-day fine and assessed the cost so the taxpayer doesn’t bear the burden for the process,” he told multiple respondents.

Votes at a glance (case number — respondent — violation(s) — outcome) - 202401123 / 202401122 / 202401124 / 202401126 — City of Sarasota v. Greg Ors Fick (multiple parcels) — alleged maintenance, work without permit — First two cases (01122, 01123) found corrected 08/18/2025; cases 01124 and 01126 continued for permit/inspection follow-up; all four continued to Oct. 30 at 11:00 a.m. (violation continuing; no new fines imposed at today’s hearing). - 202000582 — City v. Maria J. Estrella — accumulation/maintenance — Motion for rehearing denied; prior order upheld: one-day fine of $100 and city costs assessed ($3.90). - 202500056 — City v. Sandbar Corporation (d/b/a Signs in 1 Day; respondent Vaughn) — signs installed without permit — Continued to Sept. 25 at 2:45 p.m.; violation found continuing. - 202500088 — City v. John Z. O’Connor & Stephen M. O’Connor — interior renovation without permit — Inspector verified compliance 09/15/2025; magistrate imposed a one-day fine of $100 and assessed costs of $6.90. - 202500803 — City v. Natalia Gallo Erandonea & Ezekiel Guijano — accumulation/junk and fence maintenance — Inspector confirmed compliance 08/25/2025; magistrate assessed city costs of $3.90 and imposed no fine. - 202500358 / related Quest IRA matters — City v. Quest IRA / Quest Trust Company (Spratlin IRA series) — accumulation/tree issues; poor respondent contact — Magistrate modified prior orders to increase running fines (as requested by the city) and confirmed the cases will be rescheduled at the request of either party (fine increase to $2.50/day in one file; prior orders otherwise confirmed). - 202500180 — City v. Bridal TL and Company LLC — interior work without permit — Final inspection passed 09/15/2025; magistrate waived the large potential fine and instead assessed city cost $3.90, no fine. - 20205796 — City v. Lacey J. Wise — overgrowth, junk and accessory structure issues — Violations remain out of compliance; magistrate imposed a running civil fine to date of $12,800, costs $390, and ordered daily running fine at $100 until corrected; case continued to Nov. 6 at 1:00 p.m.; respondent required to attend next hearing. - 202500999 — City v. Gary Easterling (represented by contractor Robert Howard) — interior hurricane-related repairs; permit issued 08/22/2025 but inspections not yet called — Case continued to Nov. 6 at 8:30 a.m.; violation continuing. - 2025xxxx (LoLocanda tenant) — City v. 1875 Lexus LLC / LoLocanda (tenant Diego) — signs installed without permit — Inspector found no permit application; respondent and landlord told to secure permit; continued to Oct. 23 at 11:15 a.m.; violation continuing. - 2025xxxx — City v. 1798 30 Second Street LLC (Veronica Pryor) — multiple violations — Inspector confirmed compliance 09/04/2025; magistrate accepted city recommendation of no fine and no costs. - 2025000065 — City v. Oracle MBL Company LLC (Lillian Allen) — multiple building-code items; pending private-provider inspections — Owner’s contractor to file private-provider inspections; matter continued to Sept. 25 at 1:30 p.m.; most items remain continuing until filing is completed. - 20205761 — City v. Calvin Bridal — overgrowth, junk and tree-abutting-right-of-way — Magistrate authorized city to correct the violations (city to abate) and continued the matter to Oct. 23 at 1:15 p.m. - 202500765 — City v. Community Within Inc. — vehicles stored on vacant lot and unpermitted fence — Property out of compliance; magistrate imposed civil fine to date of $12,400 and costs of $390; case continued to Oct. 30 at 2:00 p.m.; representative required to attend next hearing. - 202500862 — City v. Daniel Campos Lopez — failure to renew local business tax — No contact from respondent; magistrate increased the daily running fine to $250/day and continued to Oct. 23 at 11:30 a.m.; respondent required to attend. - 202401193 / 202401194 — City v. (Baktash) Vafai / related — overgrowth and right-of-way overgrowth — For 01193 the city recommended a $500 fine plus $6.90 in costs (magistrate imposed $500 and $6.90); for 01194 the city recommended no fine and no cost (magistrate imposed none); repeat-violator warning given. - 20205615 — City v. Samuel Baldwin — failure to renew business tax — Magistrate modified prior order and increased the running daily fine to $250/day; hearing reset for Oct. 23 at 11:30 a.m.; respondent required to attend. - 202500532 — City v. Marta A. Brand Trust (appearing by Sean Brand) — overgrowth/maintenance — Inspector confirmed compliance 09/17/2025; magistrate vacated the larger accumulated fine and imposed a one-day fine of $100 plus costs of $4.65. - 2025xxxx — City v. 7 49 Siesta Holdings, Inc. — junk, overgrowth and roof in disrepair — Property remains out of compliance; magistrate imposed a civil fine to date of $8,600 and costs; case continued to Nov. 6 at 9:15 a.m.; representative required to attend. - 202500915 — City v. Canvas Sarasota LLC — overgrowth and accumulation — One code violation (overgrowth) corrected 09/16; accumulation remains; magistrate imposed civil fine to date of $8,200 and costs $3.90; continued to Nov. 6 at 2:00 p.m. - 202400441 — City v. Angela M. Johnston — after-the-fact accessory-units/permits — Inspector reported final building approval on 08/20/2025; magistrate vacated prior accrued fines and accepted city recommendation: no monetary fine but assessment of city costs of $1,140 (to recoup inspection/processing costs). - 202500595 — City v. Cargo Care Services Corp. — after-the-fact building permit pending corrections — Permit transmittal in system; matter continued to Nov. 20 at 1:15 p.m. for the parties to finalize permit and inspections. - 202500993 — City v. Larry Jean Scarborough — accumulation (move-out debris) — Inspector confirmed compliance 09/17/2025; magistrate imposed city costs of $3.90, no fine. - 202500586 — City v. DMI Group LLC (David Thompson) — fence installed without a permit — Final passed 09/05/2025; magistrate imposed a one-day fine of $100 and assessed costs of $4.65 after hearing the respondent’s legal argument; magistrate rejected the respondent’s contention that fences are outside the city’s 105.1 authority and vacated larger prior fines. - 202500728 — City v. National Comfort Footwear / St. Armands (James Walsh) — after-the-fact interior work; permit corrections pending — matter continued to Nov. 20 at 1:30 p.m. for permit corrections and inspections. - 202500948 — City v. Sharon L. McDonnell — overgrowth and accumulation — Inspector confirmed compliance 09/16/2025; magistrate imposed city costs of $3.90 and waived a larger civil fine.

Context and procedure notes Most hearings involved either: (1) confirmation that city inspections show the violation corrected, after which the magistrate typically vacated large potential fines and either imposed a nominal one‑day fine (commonly $100) plus assessed city costs ($3.90 or $4.65) or (2) cases remaining out of compliance, where the magistrate imposed running daily fines (commonly $100/day) or authorized city abatement and set a future hearing. City staff (Mr. Spence frequently presented evidence and recommendations) generally asked the magistrate to limit fines when respondents remedied violations but to recover administrative costs so taxpayers would not bear enforcement expenses. The magistrate repeatedly warned respondents that a repeat-violator provision in the city code can lead to much larger fines (in excess of $500/day) if the same respondent commits the same violation within five years.

Quotes from the hearing “I’m denying your motion,” Magistrate Richard Ellis told respondent Maria Estrella after a rehearing request (case 202000582). “I imposed a one-day fine and assessed the cost so the taxpayer doesn’t bear the burden for the process,” Ellis said several times when explaining orders that reduced potential fines in favor of one‑day fines plus costs.

What’s next Most matters were continued to dates between late September and mid-November to allow for inspections, permit corrections, private-provider inspection filings or city-initiated abatement. Respondents ordered to appear were so noted on the record; several files were left open for city follow-up or for the parties to bring proof that outstanding inspections had been closed.